Campaigning: I don't think we are going to see any significant increase in social care funding for a generation – not until we as citizens create enough fuss that it tops the government agenda.

People with disabilities don't want a default presumption that they will be dependent on state help all their lives: What is required is an entitlement from tax receipts for "reasonable adjustments" as and when required to maximise one's independence. The individual and their family will then be in a better situation to make long term plans.

We need to look beyond Dilnot: His commission failed to provide an answer to the current under-funding of care, let alone the growing need for care in the future. The biggest flaw in the proposals is that they don't bring new money into the care system now or in the future – they simply subsidise wealthier families' inheritances.

Death tax: We should look at where wealth is in our society. It's in the hands of some older people, so that's where extra tax income could be raised. You could tax universal benefits, but I still think it would be a lot fairer and simpler to introduce a care duty on estates.

Service demand review: The focus is currently on the politics around funding. This distracts from what should always come first – a review of what likely the demand for services is and will be, and of whether current service provision is the right response. Only then can we have a debate about funding.

We are being distracted by finding funding solutions: Our research endlessly tells us that our users want the same thing; continued independence, support as and when required on demand, avoidance of any form of institutional care and emergency acute services also as required but with support to be re-enabled ASAP. Strangely, if we gave them all that it would be cheaper.

Get rid of the term "social care": Countries with better arrangements for social care seem to be those where there is better recognition of the issue. "Social care" is not a term ordinary people relate to. They do relate strongly in terms of recognition to "looking after older people", so maybe we should get rid of the term "social care".

We need to find out more about the possibilities of funding from general taxation: This would mean a thoroughgoing review of the present health and social care system too, so it isn't just a matter of more of the same. Why are politicians so frightened of such an inquiry?

Importance of leadership: I have noted that ADASS does seem to have become more overtly questioning of government policies and I think that is good; strong leadership can and must keep these issues on the agenda.

We need a fundamental societal change in attitudes: In Sweden there is much higher support for taxation and it is seen as a public good, not a public evil. There are all sorts of reasons for this, including a wide consensus about sharing risk, the importance of society and commitment to the greater good.

Housing is critical: The white paper makes some attempt to acknowledge the key role of housing and there is a small amount of money for specialised housing – £200m over five years. A reduced ability to access housing for supported living or extra care will add to the issues we face as funding for care reduces.

Looking at the whole picture: Adult social care is not an island – rather it sits within the wider council. By looking at adult care separately from council funding, the government has sought to solve a problem by injecting resources on one side, while at the same time taking out a greater level of resources on the other.

Benefits of Dilnot: In places such as Surrey, with a large self-funding population, it could bring these people into contact with the social care workforce they now don't see as relevant to them.

Integration is not necessarily the answer: If we're pushed to integrate, we'll see lots of time and money wasted on structural changes that won't always lead to better outcomes. Experience has shown us that we can work together, but only where the relationships are real.

We must not forget good preventive services: Social workers must be freed up to work with people in the early stages of the onset of difficulties, helping them to link into community resources and to develop their own ways of preserving their independence for as long as possible.

Learning from child services: The effect of Eileen Monroe's analysis of social work with children should have a major impact on all the other strands of social work. Social work in child safeguarding went off up a false trail of over-rigid performance targets. The move to empower social workers to move back to the sort of creative, challenging practice that was the ideal – if not always the reality – before 1980 will have an impact on practice in adults services too.

We should not rule out the fairest options: Extending national insurance to cover social care and other quality-of-life support should be on the table. The trick will be for a broad movement to coalesce behind such a plan, which it isn't now.

What do we now consider to be public goods?: There is a broad consensus that the previous government allowed public spending to get out of hand, without adequate thought given to a collective sense of priority and value, but there is no consensus around what should and should not be collectively paid for.